Worldwide Elections 2008: #2 - ROC (Taiwan)

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by dong20, Mar 15, 2008.

?

Who will win the 4th Taiwanese Presidential Election?

Poll closed Mar 29, 2008.
  1. Ma Ying-jeou/Vincent Siew (KMT)

    1 vote(s)
    100.0%
  2. Frank Hsieh/Su Tseng-chang (DPP)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Tony Blair

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Renagade Taiwanese, China should nuke them ...

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Next Saturday, March 22nd Taiwan will hold its fourth Presidential election. It's pretty much a one horse race. Sadly the legislative elections happened in January and so missed inclusion in this series.

    There are two tickets to choose from; Frank Hsieh/Su Tseng-chang for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Ma Ying-jeou/Vincent Siew for the Kuomintang (KMT).

    Although support for both parties has fluctuated significantly, according to a recent poll, taken on March 12th the consistent front runner remains the KMT ticket with 54% of the vote, with the DPP trailing at about 29%. The incumbent, Chen Shui-bian (DPP) is term limited and with only 17% undecided it seems like a regime change is in the offing.

    With the KMT in opposition to One Nation-Two system, this is another potential thorn in the PRC's side. Still, at least they're willing to talk to China which is an improvement on the DPP stance to date.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, cast your votes now. Regrettably, there won't be a prize for the winners.
     
  2. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    The KMT does not favor either 'one China, two systems' or Formosa/Taiwan as a separate country from China (PRC).

    They still consider themselves to be the legitimate government of all China, including Tibet and Mongolia, and some areas in Russia and India. They are not actively seeking to change the status quo, though.
     
  3. B_dumbcow

    B_dumbcow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,220
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ma Ying-jeou, I think
     
  4. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    6 (now 5) days to go: Ma, Hsieh attempt to woo young voters.

    There seems to ample mudslinging going on. No evidence of head slapping that I've seen, but in politics anything goes, evidently.
     
  5. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
  6. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    The article mentions an Olympic boycott. Curious how a ROC team might participate in the Olympics in the PRC, they certainly are not going to allow a nationalist flag, any more than a Tibetan one.
     
  7. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Taiwan has a special 'Olympic' flag.
     
  8. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
  9. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    Good to see democracy functioning, after many decades of a right wing KMT dictatorship.
    From what I understand, something like a common market is what is meant by closer ties.

    I think it was wrong for countries to go along with being arm twisted into derecognizing the ROC when they recognized the PRC. And for their UN seat to be taken from them. They are still de facto independent, in any case.

    They are fortunate in have a more effective tank barrier than Tibet has. Pretty difficult to put a carrier task force between Tibet and China.

    The PRC has added another precondition to dialogue with the Government of Tibet in Exile: they must agree to the PRC's position on Taiwan. If that condition was met, they would probably put up another obstacle, like requiring an agreement on the PRC's position on Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin.

    Not election related, it was interesting to learn that that the aboriginal languages of Formosa/Taiwan have been there about 3000 years, they spread about 2500 years ago to the Philippines, then to northern New Guinea, Melanesia, Borneo, the Malay Peninsula, Indonesia, Polynesia, Easter Island, Hawaii, New Zealand, and Madagascar.
     
  10. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Indeed.

    The disputes over Arunchal Pradesh and Aksai Chin are between the PRC and Indianot Tibet. I'm not sure what China would achieve by seeking to force the Tibetan Government in Exile to acknowledge the validity of a PRC position on these areas.

    Tibet does claim Bhutan and Part of Ladakh (the ancient kingdom of which Aksai Chin was once part) as part of it's cultural sphere but 'ceded' Aksai Chin to the then British Occupied India in 1904 and AP (effectively) in 1914. In all practical senses India has in effect long since abandoned Tibet to its fate.

    Tibet is pivotal from a Chinese perspective in terms of Aksai Chin. The tripartite agreement signed in Simla was (in effect) bilateral between Lhasa and Delhi. At the time the Chinese were only concerned with their Eastern border with Tibet.

    The status of Tibet is important because for 2000 years the border between India and China was effectively undefined. It's only since 1950 that it became such an issue with the PRC invasion of Tibet. Zhou-en-Lai convinced Nehru that with the British were 'imperialists' and thus that the McMahon line agreement was also 'imperialist'. Nehru apparently didn't understand the Chinese position in respect of the McMahon line. At any rate he evidently failed to grasp the significance enough to raise the issue.

    China also didn't bring the issue up again so presumably Nehru concluded the McMahon line was accepted by China, which of course it wasn't. The 1954 Panchseel agreement avoided the issue of the Aksai Chin border directly and again both parties said nothing.

    By 1959 when China 'announced' that it rejected the McMahon line it was too late and China was already effectively 'in occupation'. China presumably maintained its claim to AP in the assumption that by renouncing its claim on AP it would obtain legalisation of it's occupation of Aksai Chin. It was as naive of Nehru as it was sharp of Zhou to remain silent on this.

    There is evidence that far from being 'stabbed in the back' over this issue as many Indians believe, Nehru was well aware of Chinese incursions long before the Indian public and that the Chinese were laying the Tibet-Xinjiang road as early as 1955 yet said and did nothing. The motivation for this may have been simply to protect the Panchsheel agreement.

    Whatever the reason, Nehru failed to realise or take advantage of the opportunities he had at the time. The 'discovery' of this road was (in hindsight) merely a useful pretext for the 62 war.

    It would be fair to say both sides have missed opportunities to resolve this issue over the last 50 years. First, India failed to take advantage of China's weakness while embroiled in Tibet, Korea and faced domestic issues with Chiang. Later, when China made attempts to stabilise its Indian border after it occupied Tibet, India steadfastly prevaricated.

    In the 1960s Zhou-en-Lai, made several trips to India in an attempt to resolve border issues. The Chinese were willing to finally (at least in principle and only for the Eastern border) accept the McMahon Line and wanted to 'negotiate' the the western border between Ladakh and Tibet. The Chinese wanted to do this in stages, Nehru wanted it all at once. Ultimately, nothing came of it.

    Since then, China's military strength has far outstripped India's leaving the situation decidedly one sided. Today, China clearly has the upper hand.

    Arguably, the root of the problem lies primarily with Nehru for his disregard of the Tibetan situation in favour of a focus on Korea. His heirs refusal to allows access to historical records, adds to the confusion over these issues - although many key records do also exist in London. Chinese deceit and intransigence are also key factors.

    This is all covered in "The Fate of Tibet" by Claude Arpi.
     
  11. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    The story of India being taken entirely by surprise in the first India-China war does not seem entirely plausible to me either.

    The Government of Tibet in Exile adheres to the bilateral agreements between the British Raj and the thirteenth Dalai Lama and accepts the McMahon line.

    Perhaps a factor for their welcome in India.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted